Creationism being taught in schools is a not all bad

Scroll to see replies

In science lessons, yes, it is all bad. Teaching kids to debate and be critical is good, and I'm certainly not a fan of the large amount of rote-style teaching in which kids are just told stuff to remember for an exam, but there are much less insane ways to do this. There's a big difference between teaching kids to be critical and teaching them that crowbaring evidence to try to fit preconceived ideology is a legitimate form of enquiry.

If you want to teach about Creationism in RS/RE, go ahead (though can't see why it would be useful), as long as (like all topics in RE should be) it's taught as something that some people believe, rather than a potential truth to be entertained.

Reply 41

Maker

America had to import Nazi scientists because Americans are not very bright.

Reply 42

Galadrielll

The arrogance of atheists knows no bounds. How are you going to contradict creationism when there is just so much evidence for it.

Reply 43

Plagioclase

Original post by Galadrielll

when there is just so much evidence for it.

Funny coming from someone who suddenly stops replying to my posts when I ask them to give the evidence they claim to have...

Reply 44

Rather_Cynical

It isn't "so much evidence for it", more "fundamentally lack the scientific literacy/capacity to be able to understand the world in a more accurate, descriptive way based on observation and reason"

If your mind is uninterested in what's actually true, but rather more interested in what you wish to be true, then the religious explanation is great. For those of us who are concerned with having worldviews that are actually consistent with reality, we don't want you to poison the education system with dogmatic religious ideology masquerading as science.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 45

Racoon

Original post by Galadrielll

Many scientists support creationism and in fact lots of the evidence for evolution supports creationism in some cases more so than evolution itself. Take the lack of transitional fossils for example. If all life forms have evolved from simpler life forms there should be millions of transitional fossils available for study. These transitional fossils would be of the type showing the process of one species evolving into another. However, no transitional fossils have ever been found. As such the fossil record actually lines up better with supernatural creation than with macroevolution.

i totally agree.

Reply 46

Good bloke

Original post by Galadrielll

The arrogance of atheists knows no bounds. How are you going to contradict creationism when there is just so much evidence for it.

Bring on the evidence. I could do with a good laugh.

Reply 47

Racoon

Original post by ByEeek

Not really. Science is about taking a theory and testing it to find out if it is correct or not. Creationism is a narrative and Creationist Scientists cherry pick the science they need in order to reassure themselves that science fits the narrative.

As for teaching in schools - sure, I don't have a problem with lessons along the line of "Some people believe the world was created by a God" However, the current understanding based in science is that life was probably created by a freak chance of circumstances bringing together the required atomic structures together in an environment that allowed them to live. Over many millions of years, evolution and natural selection have lead to many species of living organism on this planet. Science continues to test and investigate new theories and this position may well change as future advances are made.

In other words - Creationism will always be Creationism, but science will change and adapt its position as new evidence and knowledge emerges.

Now that's a tale. How is it even possible to believe this?

Reply 48

Rather_Cynical

The ancient Greeks believed with as much fervor as your adamant insistence about creationism, except about Zeus' furious anger when he would throw thunderbolts.

But when we conquered the mountains, we found no Gods - and we learned that thunder is simply rapid expansion of surrounding air when there is a discharge owing to the potential difference between the skies and the Earth. This potential difference is owed to the particle constituents of matter.

Being pious doesn't mean your beliefs are true, usually quite the opposite.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 49

Rather_Cynical

Original post by Racoon

Now that's a tale. How is it even possible to believe this?

By understanding that human existence was never inevitable, and statistical unlikelihoods happen all the time. By understanding that the cosmos is extremely vast, most of which extremely hostile to life, but with so many planets and stars it's possible for that coincidence to actually happen.

It's not known precisely how, or what, but the approximate recipe for life involves any relatively stable molecule that can self-replicate imperfectly - ie every time the word processor does a copy and paste, a character or two gets messed up. The ones that are viable are saved, the rest gets wiped.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 50

Galadrielll

Original post by Plagioclase

Funny coming from someone who suddenly stops replying to my posts when I ask them to give the evidence they claim to have...

I stopped reading your post because it became very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. But you're right, I do owe you a response. Expect one tomorrow. I am too far engrossed in watching this foreign film on Netflix to pay you mind right now.

Reply 51

Plagioclase

Original post by Galadrielll

it became very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about

Reply 52

Rather_Cynical

Original post by Plagioclase

Isn't it hilarious how he thinks his beliefs are actually justified?

Reply 53

Racoon

Original post by Rather_Cynical

I have to totally disagree with you.

We are far too complex to be a coincidence.

Reply 54

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Galadrielll

Evolution relies on the idea that things can improve and eventually become more complex. However, what we observe in the real world is that everything runs down or becomes less complex - entropy. Are you familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. For evolution to work organisms would improve always and become more complex. We do not see this in observable science.

You're right that there is an apparent paradox there, but it's only an apparent one. Organisms retain an ordered state and build complexity by simultaneously breaking down ordered structures - generally energy-containing molecules like glucose.

The laws of thermodynamics state that entropy must always increase and things must always become less ordered. Life's way of dealing with this is to increase entropy in an uneven way, increasing the entropy of their surroundings to minimise internal entropy and retain their own stability.

Once you've got that going complexity practically builds itself up. Structures that are better suited to resisting breakdown and forming more of themselves do so, and more complicated structures generally fit that bill. Less well suited structures die out. Information is passed from parent organism to child organism, and specific bits of information that cause their carriers to be better survivors become more common, because their carriers survive more.

Reply 55

Rather_Cynical

Original post by Racoon

I have to totally disagree with you.

We are far too complex to be a coincidence.

Citation needed. Is that based on any kind of mathematical analysis that you've performed? Or your excellent understanding of biochemistry and how it's impossible for there to be a mechanism to reduce local entropy in a non-isolated system over time?

Reply 56

Plagioclase

Original post by Rather_Cynical

Isn't it hilarious how he thinks his beliefs are actually justified?

I think he's just trying to wind us up to be honest but I look forward to the numerous peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism as a scientific theory that @Galadrielll will no doubt present me with tomorrow.

Reply 57

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Galadrielll

There's an entire branch of creationism that is dedicated to proving it as a scientific theory - enter Creation Science or more correctly Naturalistic creationism.

And that right there is the difference between science and pseudoscience. A scientist never collects data in an attempt to prove a specific hypothesis, and they certainly don't dedicate themselves to a certain hypothesis that they try to prove. Doing so would unavoidably skew them towards data that seems to support the hypothesis and blind them to data that seems to refute it. A real scientist avoids preconceived notions at all costs!

Reply 58

Rather_Cynical

I'm interested in how creationists think God magic'd up the world. The operative word being how, using what mechanisms to bring about reality. If they accept the challenge, then we can start looking for imprints of Genesis.